Brassier in NYC

Triple Canopy is pleased to announce Speculations (“The future is ______”), fifty days of lectures, discussions, and debates about the future, as part of EXPO 1: New York at MoMA PS1. Speculations will take place from May 12 to July 28, in a structure created by artist José León Cerrillo and in an installation designed by artist Adrián Villar Rojas.  Among many other participants, Ray Brassier will be making an appearance.

MoMA PS1, 22-25 Jackson Avenue, Long Island City, NY - presents

Ray Brassier (American University of Beirut)
Friday, July 19, 2 p.m seminar & 4 p.m. lecture

Ray Brassier is a philosopher and a translator of Alain Badiou and Quentin Meillassoux. Author of Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction and a participant in the original "Speculative Realism" conference, he will discuss what the future is and what it means to orient oneself toward it.

http://canopycanopycanopy.com/programs/87

some thoughts on academic politics brought to mind by a recent article published

DMF sent me a link to the new issue of Analecta Hermeneutica HERE, which is on continental philosophy of religion.  One article in particular seemed interesting but there were a few errors/or troubling issues in it which stand in need of correction or address.  Peter Gratton's "Meillassoux's Speculative Politics" discusses in detail Meillassoux's ontology of the divine inexistence, although I found several things puzzling.

The first issue is that while Gratton largely acknolwedges the concrete similarities between Meillassoux and Kearney on the possible God (as well as similarities to Caputo's God to come), he states that Kearney's approach is based upon a particular Biblical passage or within a specific Biblical history.  Having reviewed Kearney's book The God Who May Be in my own research, this claim is only partially true as Kearney spends a good amount of time indicating the same sort of virtual ontology that Meillassoux does in his discussions of the "metaphysics of the possible" (Nicholas of Cusa, see especially pages 37-8 in Kearney's book).  This ontology and metaphysics of the possible is, for all intents and purposes, independent of the Biblical claim presented as a contextual device in the beginning of the book.

Second, other than some "obligatory" hat tipping to the usual suspects for providing excerpted translations of The Divine Inexistence (a dissertation which is, by the way, available in microfiche HERE, these libraries will copy it for you for a fee so it may be worth it if you read French), it was interesting to see that those translations were the primary source of research rather than either the dissertation itself, or more understandably, the essay "Immanence of the World Beyond" which boils down to essentials the dissertation.

This leads to a tangentially related point that (not Gratton per se) but elsewhere, where I am finding that there is a good amount of research on Meillassoux and theology/religion that is simply getting ignored.  Why didn't this research (including talks/conferences etc.) appear referenced in the article?  It was as if there was a stretch to include allies yet much of the more concrete work out there specifically relating to the topic at hand was, well, just missing.  Those were my two thoughts about it - otherwise I appreciated Peter's effort and enjoyed what he wrote.  If you are into Meillassoux/theology then you should definitely read Peter's article which I've linked above.  I'd now like to move on to a related but more distant point.

***

So on a less related note, this reminds me of how an ex-friend of mine was trying to make excuses for  his crony friends (mentioned in Gratton's article incidentally) who time and time again try to white me out from the history books by deliberately ignoring my work due to personal dislike and crony politics.  His line was that "they just aren't interested in theology" - and he then, rather arrogantly, went on ask, well, "What have you done?"  I then proceeded to offer a litany of my work in the field for that year alone.  This is surprising as I wonder why I would have to justify the fact that I do research in a field to someone whose momentary success is due to his alliance with these goons (which indeed will pass as the fad he's bought into passes).  I simply question scholarly integrity any time a scholar intentionally ignores certain sources in the field and then stretches and goes to unrelated others for personal rather than scholarly-research support.  But I can explain to you why this is.  (Again, I want to be clear and collegial, the thought popped into my mind while reading Peter's article but he isn't guilty of the cronyism that I am critiquing.  Far from it, to be fair.  No one can include all sources in everything all of the time.)

I question scholarly integrity when one KNOWS who is working on what, who has published what, who has given talks on what, etc.   However, rather than work through the literature, it is simply easier to become a sports writer and inflate the value of those who pass a friendship test ("Well, my friends speak highly of so-and-so!" or "It's so-and-so, so of course it's right!" or just cover only who you have personal connections with rather than be honest and do a good review of the literature and account for who is working on what.  On the other hand, the tactic includes just disparaging or ignoring those who you don't or can't get along with.  It's as simple as that.  This is why I support academic groups or para-academic groups (now the newly founded P.E.S.T. for example) who basically serve as a fist in the face of academic repression and cronyism. 

In the end, the above observation is a point which is far, far away from Gratton's article and these thoughts aren't directed personally at him in any way (I've emailed him once and he seemed nice enough), but it came to mind when I read the article and happened to notice that alot of the research available out there on Meillassoux was missing from it (whether conferences, talks, papers, or even open access publications, which is weird considering that Analecta Hermeneutic is open access).  But to boot, more generally speaking, it's just a shame that good scholars who do work in speculative continental philosophy - whether Terry Blake, or one the Americanist side Jason Hills, are not engaged because personal, rather than philosophical, reasons. They have good arguments, excellent work, but where is the engagement?

We often here the cry that, well, in order for me to engage you "I need arguments."  We supply arguments, then it turns into, "Well, that's just on a blog and blogs are too democratic anyway."  Then it's published in an academic venue, and then it's just silence from there.  I think that's telling about the original lack of substance with these people anyway and how disgustingly politicized and personal our small little arena of research in the speculative world has become.  Their side just doesn't have arguments to address, while we do nothing but provide good arguments from the outset.  It seems to be two different levels entirely.

We're out here.  Know that.  Know that they fear blogs because it's our voice.  They say its snark, but who are the worst perpetrators of snark?  They've taken to twitter, so have we.  We won't be silenced.  So, watch out. 

P.E.S.T.

There'a a new kid on the block. Keep an eye out for some great, young upstart talent coming out of this group. Glad to be a part/support.

@afterxnature, or another twitter experiment

So far for three years every summer for a week or two I hop on twitter to see how things work, to see if there is any substance to any of the hoopla out there about it.  For now, I'll save my observations on what I think of twitter until the experiment is over which (hopefully) will culminate in a talk for P.E.S.T. when we return from Thailand.

The purpose is just to stream my thoughts and occasionally interact with folks in a more personal way than I do here on my blog.  On twitter I'll just comment upon what I see and call it as I see it, offering a stream of personal reflections, retweets, or occasional interactions.

Because I won't be on for long (possibly) please don't be offended if I am not really enticed for followers or to follow etc.  The main goal is just to experiment with streaming a thought process or react to what I see out there.

I'll file this under academic politics.

walking along river on tracks

Death in June, "Peaceful Snow."

Death in June, "Peaceful Snow."

Corrington on his philosophy of ecstatic naturalism (VIDEO)

The plenary address delivered by Professor Robert S. Corrington at the Third International Congress on Ecstatic Naturalism held at Drew University, Madison, NJ on April 12th and 13th, 2013, wherein he discusses his recent book, "Nature's Sublime."

Laruelle "On the Black Universe"

A reading of a text/translation HERE of Laruelle's piece "Of Black Universe in Human Foundations of Color."  From the recent event in NYC "Dark Nights of the Universe" held at Recess Activities space.  I'll be putting up some mp3s of this in the After Nature mp3 section, hopefully soon.

The video is by Aaron Mette, who after doing some research I found out is a graduate of UPenn fine arts.  Not sure if he was present at the talk I gave there last November or at my more recent talk on the "vital negative" from earlier this spring in NYC.  Video below.


On the Black Universe in the Human Foundations of Color

dynamic tensions

Interview with Joseph Nechvatal titled "Dynamic Tensions" at Anti-Utopias art platform/website, HERE.  There is mention of Latour, Meillassoux, themes in vitalism and process philosophy.  Interesting read, check it out.

Also, the Anti-Utopias website has some generally good content up (my taste in art is much more "traditional," however I enjoyed what I saw).  Be sure to take a look, HERE.  The sections on "New Natures" and "Spiritualities" I thought were well done.

Nechvatal also does experimental music, link HERE.  Some very interesting stuff.

another new Hegel and Deleuze title

Hegel, Deleuze, and the Critique of Representation.  This looks especially interesting in how the author sees both as targeting and seeking to go beyond Kantian transcendental idealism, while focusing on the role that negation and difference plays in each.  Link HERE, blurb and table of contents below.


Hegel, Deleuze, and the Critique of Representation provides a critical account of the key connections between twentieth-century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and nineteenth-century German idealist G. W. F. Hegel. While Hegel has been recognized as one of the key targets of Deleuze’s philosophical writing, Henry Somers-Hall shows how Deleuze’s antipathy to Hegel has its roots in a problem the two thinkers both try to address: getting beyond a philosophy of judgment and the restrictions of Kant’s transcendental idealism. By tracing the development of their attempts to address this problem, Somers-Hall offers an interpretation of the sweep of nineteenth- and twentieth-century philosophy, providing a series of analyses of key moments in the history of thought, including the logics of Aristotle and Russell, Kant’s own philosophy of judgment, and the philosophy of Bergson. He also develops a novel interpretation of Deleuze’s philosophy of difference, and situates his philosophy in relation to the broader post-Kantian tradition. In addition to Deleuze’s relation to Hegel, the book makes important contributions to the study of Deleuze’s philosophy of mathematics, as well as to the study of several underappreciated areas of Hegel’s own philosophy.



Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Abbreviations
Acknowledgments
Introduction

PART ONE: THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION

1. Deleuze and Transcendental Epiricism

Introduction
Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason
Sartre and The Transcendence of the Ego
Deleuze and The Logic of Sense
Conclusion

2. Difference and Identity

Introduction
Aristotle
The Genus and Equivocity in Aristotle
Change and the Individual
Aquinas
Symbolic Logic
Preliminary Conclusions
Hegel and Aristotle
Zeno
Conclusion

PART TWO: RESPONSES TO REPRESENTATION

3. Bergsonism

Introduction
Bergson’s Account of Kant and Classical Logic
Bergson’s Method of Intuition
Bergson and the Two Kinds of Multiplicity
Conclusion

4. The Virtual and the Actual

Introduction
The Two Multiplicities
Depth in Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
Deleuze and the Structure of the Problem
Bergson on Ravaisson
Conclusion

5. Infinite Thought

Introduction
Kant and Hegel
The Metaphysical Deduction and Metaphysics
From Being to Essence
The Essential and the Inessential
The Structure of Reflection
The Determinations of Reflection
The Speculative Proposition
The Concept of Essence in Aristotle and Hegel
Conclusion

PART THREE: BEYOND REPRESENTATION

6. Hegel and Deleuze on Ontology and the Calculus

Introduction
The Calculus
Hegel and the Calculus
Berkeley and the Foundations of the Calculus
Deleuze and the Calculus
Hegel and Deleuze
The Kantian Antinomies
Conclusion

7. Force, Difference, and Opposition

Introduction
Force and the Understanding
The Inverted World
Deleuze and the Inverted World
The One and the Many
Conclusion

8. Hegel, Deleuze, and the Structure of the Organism

Introduction
The Philosophy of Nature
Hegel and Evolution
Hegel’s Account of the Structure of the Organism
Hegel, Cuvier, and Comparative Anatomy
Deleuze, Geoffroy, and Transcendental Anatomy
Teratology and Teleology
Contingency in Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature
Conclusion

Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index

New title on Hegel and Deleuze

From Northwestern University Press.  Link HERE.  Blurb below.

Hegel and Deleuze cannily examines the various resonances and dissonances between these two major philosophers. The collection represents the best in contemporary international scholarship on G. W. F. Hegel and Gilles Deleuze, and the contributing authors inhabit the as-yet uncharted space between the two thinkers, collectively addressing most of the major tensions and resonances between their ideas and laying a solid ground for future scholarship. The essays are organized thematically into two groups: those that maintain a firm but nuanced disjunction or opposition between Hegel and Deleuze, and those that chart possible connections, syntheses, or both. As is clear from this range of texts, the challenges involved in grasping, appraising, appropriating, and developing the systems of Deleuze and Hegel are varied and immense. While neither Hegel nor Deleuze gets the last word, the contributors ably demonstrate that partisans of either can no longer ignore the voice of the other.

Fellowship: Idealism and Pragmatism

Please see below for more information on a two-week visiting research fellowship at the University of Sheffield.

Visiting Research Fellowship, in conjunction with the Leverhulme network project on 'Idealism and Pragmatism: Convergence or Contestation?'

Applications are invited for a two-week visiting research fellowship at the Department of Philosophy, University of Sheffield. The fellowship is funded as part of the Leverhulme network project on 'Idealism and Pragmatism', and is to be held around the period of the first workshop, 25th-26th October 2013.The fellowship will cover travel, subsistence and accommodation for a two-week period. The fellow will be expected to attend the workshop, and also to present their work at some point during their stay.

The successful applicant should have completed their PhD by the time of the fellowship, and should have a demonstrable interest in the themes of the project.

Applications from both junior and senior scholars in the field are equally welcome.To apply, please send (1) a CV (2) a writing sample (3) a short statement of how your work relates to the themes of the project (no more than 1000 words). If possible, please submit this material electronically to the project administrator, Kim Redgrave by4.00pm on Monday 20th May 2013. If electronic submission is not possible, please contact Ms Redgrave for further instructions.

For any academic queries, please contact Robert Stern

For further details of the project, see:http://idealismandpragmatism.org/events

For details of the 2013 Sheffield workshop, see:http://idealismandpragmatism.org/workshop-2013

For details of the Sheffield University Philosophy department, see:http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/philosophy

On the Sources of Normativity: A Deleuzean Account - Dan Smith

special issue on ecstatic naturalism: Journal for the Study ofReligion, Nature & Culture

Featuring Robert King, Demian Wheeler, Abigail Turner-Lauck, Martin Yalcin, and myself.  Robert S. Corrington will be the special guest editor.  Journal's website link is HERE.

You know you must be doing something right to have two print journals offer special themed issues on your work within a year.  Corrington deserves alot of credit in this respect.

My article will be titled, "Speculative Naturalism: An American and Continental Hybrid."

some positive responses to Iain Grant's recent interview

Some positive responses to the recent After Nature interview with Iain Grant can be found HERE over at footnotes to plato, HERE over at noir realism, HERE at progressive geographies, HERE at naught thought, and HERE at speculum criticum, to mention a few.  I appreciate the recognition for the hard work that I put into the interview and really feel that it came out well, but you readers can be the judge.

I especially liked this from Bryan at speculum criticum's post:

"The interview an is an excellent point of entry into Grant's work if you are unfamiliar with him (I found him the least easy, though not the least congenial, of the horsemen to read, at first). Niemoczynski asks very in-depth questions that that draw out some very thought-through responses. In the context of Niemoczynski's own projects, I was especially interested in this remark by Grant:

    These, then, are the operations characteristic of a philosophy of nature: genesis recapitulated in the genesis of isolation cannot be reversed, such that genesis itself is isolated, without an additional operation or continuation of genesis on which that isolation depends. And here, I think, we gain insight into the complex location of the Idea in nature: it is precisely the additional dimension articulated by the operation capable of abstracting its objects from the context on which they are dependent.... philosophers of nature such as Peirce and Whitehead [need to] be recovered not merely as historical instances but rather in the context of how their inquiries into nature present the conceptualization consequent upon it as modifications of precisely that process into which they are inquiring. I am particularly interested in the development of the dialectic of the physical whereby reflection upon it augments it in the dimension of the Idea without making the Idea into the finally determining instance of a nature directed towards it. Nature thought as ontogenesis cannot but have as a consequence that the thought that nature is ontogenetic must be consequent upon an ontogenetic nature.

If I may gloss this (and I hope someone will set me straight if I am wrong), this has to do with the claim that nature in some measure includes the capacity to represent nature, and to represent that capacity.

Interesting threads abound in this exchange. There's a very good passage in one of the Niemoczynski's questions about the resonance between Grant's work and Brassier's concerning negativity -- a thinking of an unexperienciable in-itself in both philosophers' work -- and it sheds some light on Niemoczynski's work in some other posts of his as well. Grant's response defending a "polypsychism" (he doesn't use this term, which I've lifted from Harman, but it seems apposite) also puts the question in the context of his broader philosophical project on "Grounds and Powers," which seems to be the working title of his next book. I'm looking forward to it."

I, too, am looking forward to what Grant has next, especially vis-a-vis someone like Brassier and his version of naturalism (Brassier whose work I admire just as much as Grant's).  I plan to contribute to that conversation if I can through some of my upcoming projects, so stay on the lookout.  Very exciting things going on.